You really have to wade through the vitriol, but what Coulter brings to the table are some of the most succinctly-put observations.
"By prohibiting speech by anyone else, the campaign-finance laws have vastly magnified the power of the media -- which, by the way, are wholly exempt from speech restrictions under campaign-finance laws...
What a bizarre coincidence that a few years after the most draconian campaign-finance laws were imposed via McCain-Feingold, our two front-runners happen to be the media's picks! It's uncanny -- almost as if by design!"
Edit: In the case of the Democrats, the media has placed a much more likable candidate at the front of who might otherwise have been an unstoppable candidate, but for us Republicans, we get stuck with someone none of us really like. From anncoulter.com
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually what amuses me the most is that McCain may be getting in trouble now due to the McCain-Feingold law...
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Too bad he didn't get into trouble for it before it passed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm currently amused by a video of a kitten eating corn on the cob.
Seriously, check this out.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Any details on that Chris? I know he turned down public financing a week or two ago, and I'd read something about him running afoul of basically his own rules, but I haven't heard any details at all.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm currently amused by a video of a kitten eating corn on the cob.
quote:What a bizarre coincidence that a few years after the most draconian campaign-finance laws were imposed via McCain-Feingold, our two front-runners happen to be the media's picks! It's uncanny -- almost as if by design!"
I'm unconvinced that campaign finance laws have actually had much of an impact on this election.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I assumed that without campaign finance laws, Hillary Clinton would have out-raised Obama by quite a bit.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm currently amused by a video of a kitten eating corn on the cob.
That is awesome. It's all like NOM NOM NOM.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I assumed that without campaign finance laws, Hillary Clinton would have out-raised Obama by quite a bit.
I'm not sure that this is the case.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
And I am pretty sure Jon Boy made further comments on the corn cob gobblin kitten redundant.
Ann Coulter's excelent point is, "d*mn it! Money talks less then media these days, but for some reason my show is bucking this trend!"
Tom: Why do you think so? Do you mean you think Obama could raise just as much soft money as Clinton?
edit: Or that soft money has been replaced my an equally lucrative source of funds?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: And I am pretty sure Jon Boy made further comments on the corn cob gobblin kitten redundant.
Well, I love the way it is trying to gnaw down on the whole cob, not just the kernels. Cute nose!
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
What was Ann Coulter's other excellent point?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So the media all along planned to have Giuliani and Clinton implode, and have McCain and Obama take the lead?
Because it really really didn't feel that way at all in 2007.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I am a little confused on how we know who the media's favorite is? Like pooka, I thought it was Giuliani and Clinton. Ron Paul's people seemed to think Guiliani was getting special treatment. So, after we see who won, then we know who the media favored? Also, how is the media one entity? Do they have secret meetings were they decide what "the media" believes? Cause my local stations are very different then CNN when reporting national news, and CNN seems to have different biases then say Fox News? How about Daily Show- are they part of the conspiracy?
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I am a little confused on how we know who the media's favorite is? Like pooka, I thought it was Giuliani and Clinton. Ron Paul's people seemed to think Guiliani was getting special treatment. So, after we see who won, then we know who the media favored? Also, how is the media one entity? Do they have secret meetings were they decide what "the media" believes? Cause my local stations are very different then CNN when reporting national news, and CNN seems to have different biases then say Fox News? How about Daily Show- are they part of the conspiracy?
I don't think "the media" gets together and decides what candidates they're going to support. I do think, however, that there are certain candidates who seem to be heavily favored by the media, based on an objective review of their coverage of all candidates. This comes as a result, I belive, of reporters allowing their personal biases influence the way they present a story. I don't think this is always by design; it's just an unintended consequence of having journalists be the only filter through which most people get their information.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
There have been various media surveys, and to varying degrees they have shown that media coverage has been generally more favorable to Obama over Clinton (though I cannot see how that wouldn't be a completely natural result of the personalities of the respective candidates) and overwhelmingly more favorable to McCain, which would be a prediction based upon the premise that the media in general (not as a single conspiring entity) has an inherent dislike for conservatives.
I cannot link to these studies as I saw the reports on TV, though I'm sure that information is available somewhere online.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)